Receiving substantive, representative feedback from students about our required MSPA Studies program curriculum and instructors is crucial in helping the School of Medicine to understand program strengths and weaknesses and identify opportunities to improve the educational experience for future generations of students. In addition, learning to give and receive feedback is an integral part of developing professional skills students will need as future clinicians.
Professionalism Requirements for Completing Evaluations
- Students must complete all evaluations assigned to them.
- All evaluations must be completed within 3 weeks of being assigned. (Due dates will be included in the initial evaluation notice.)
- Required evaluations include:
- Entry survey as required for grant funding
- Evaluations of all required pre-clerkship courses
- Individual evaluations of pre-clerkship faculty lectures
- Preceptor evaluations for Practice of Medicine (POM)
- Small group evaluations for POM (peer and small group leader)
- Evaluations of all required clerkships
- Individual evaluations of clerkship instructors (complete all assigned evaluations).
- Scholarly Concentrations evaluations
- Graduation Questionnaire
- For the pre-clerkship curriculum, completion rates on evaluations will be reviewed after each quarter has finished and the evaluation due-dates have passed. If a student has not completed at least 75% of the evaluations assigned during the quarter, their advisor will be alerted. The student will receive feedback about professionalism expectations from their faculty advisor.
- Evaluation completion rates will continue to be checked for each subsequent quarter. If a student completes less than 75% of the evaluations assigned during a subsequent quarter, the advisor will be alerted that there has been a second lapse in professionalism with regard to evaluations. The student will receive additional feedback regarding professionalism expectations and a warning that any further lapse may result in a referral to the Student Progress Committee.
- If a student completes less than 75% of evaluations in another quarter (third violation), the student will be referred to Student Progress Committee for a professionalism concern.
- Failure to complete other required evaluations (clerkship, scholarly concentration, etc.) may also lead to advisor being notified. Repeated failure to complete these assigned evaluations may also result in a referral to Student Progress Committee.
Use of Professional Language in Evaluations
- Comments provided in evaluations should be constructive, respectful and framed using language that the evaluator would want to hear used if he or she was being evaluated.
- Written comments provided in student evaluations are anonymous (i.e., faculty cannot access information about the identity of an individual student who provides comments in an evaluation form). However, if a student submits a written comment in an evaluation form that violates either a) the Stanford Affirmation or b) the Stanford University Code of Conduct that comment may be subject to review by committee.
- Any instructor, staff, or student may request that a comment be reviewed to determine whether it violates the Stanford Affirmation or the Stanford University Code of Conduct.
- Comments in question will be brought before the MSPA Studies program leadership.
- If the leadership review determines that the comment violates the Stanford Affirmation or the Stanford University Code of Conduct, a request may be made to try to determine the identity of the evaluation writer. In this case, the Associate Dean of PA Education will contact the vendor where the evaluation data is housed to request that their staff share with us the identity of the student who committed the violation in their evaluation.
- The student who wrote the comment that is determined to have violated the Stanford Affirmation or the University Code of Conduct may be asked to revise the comment and/or submit an apology to the faculty member and/or the course or curriculum leader the comment targeted.
- The student’s advisor will be notified of the violation. The student will receive feedback about professionalism expectations and a warning that a second lapse will lead to a referral to Student Progress Committee.
- If the student submits a second comment that is determined by the Student Progress Committee to have violated the Stanford Affirmation or the University Code of Conduct, the student will be referred to the Student Progress Committee for a professionalism concern.